Latest Post

Suffolk Technologies, a Delaware LLC, accused AOL and Google of infringing patents–including US Patent 6,081,835–through the use of Google AdWords and AdSense. A lawsuit filed in June 2012 explained that the patents originated at British Telecom (BT), and a series of simultaneously recorded assignments shows the patents subsequently assigned to IPValue and then Suffolk. According to an … Continue reading →

Featured Posts

Becton Dickinson made a surprising announcement today. From the press release: David V. Elkins, 44, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, has informed the Company of his plans to pursue an entrepreneurial opportunity at Round Rock Research, LLC, a technology licensing company, serving as its CFO. Yes, that Round Rock Research. The one formed … Continue reading →

Little more than one year ago, GametimeIP reported that a German investment fund acquired a substantial portfolio from British Telecom: According to a press release issued yesterday, the German patent fund Patentportfolio 2 S.a.r.l. acquired 400 patent assets from publicly held BT Group PLC. The group is funded by the German investment fund Alpha Patentfronds 2, and strategic … Continue reading →

Last month, Acacia reported in its second quarter earnings that 72% of its revenue for, or $36 M, came from a single licensee. (See A Tale Of 2 Quarters – Acacia Research Illustrates Patent Play Volatility). During a telephone conversation with Paul Ryan, he explained that revenue concentrations can occur when companies license multiple Acacia … Continue reading →

In a rare move, given their previous disdain for intellectual property owners, Google released new enhancements to the free Google Patents search engine to help patent owners–along with lawyers, analysts and advisors–identify and investigate potential patent infringement. To avoid potential backlash from a community of activists that have rallied around the search advertising giant, Google … Continue reading →

Two bills currently pending in Congress, if passed, would ultimately impact patent enforcement far more than the lengthy America Invents Act signed into law last year. First up is H.R. 3889 Promoting Automotive Repair, Trade, and Sales Act, introduced by California Republican (and inventor) Darrell Issa and aimed at curbing enforcement of design patents that … Continue reading →

The BBC ran another article in a tired meme about evil patent owners supposedly “costing” billions per year. Of course, the article doesn’t specify who supposedly bore this $29 B “cost” or how it was calculated, but instead cites a Boston University paper by Professors James Bessen and Michael Meurer. According to the BBC article, … Continue reading →

Earlier this week, reports of Intellectual Ventures recent license agreement with Cypress Semiconductor surfaced. Cypress requested confidential treatment in an SEC filing disclosing that the semiconductor maker "agreed to pay a license fee and to purchase certain litigation defense services from IV in the future." The filing mentions a related agreement in which "IV is expected to make certain patent purchases from [Cypress] in the near term."
On its website, Intellectual Ventures explained that the agreement with Cypress "establishes a long-term relationship which allows for further IP transactions and cooperation in the future." IV also carried a statement from Cypress' CFO, touting that the "recently executed agreements will provide both companies with access to an ever-increasing pool of patent assets, which is consistent with our patent strategies.”
Reading between the lines, a possible arrangement may be in the works where Cypress pays below market rates for a global IV license, while offloading patents to an IV-controlled company and potentially participating in generated revenue streams from any resulting licensing programs, similar to the arrangement believed to exist between IV, Micron and Round Rock.

So, less than 24 hours after I wrote that "sometimes the day is not complete without a column ... about how our patent system is malfunctioning and not performing its goal of 'promoting innovation,'" we have this insipid entry from the Wall Street Journal and Andy Kessler. The piece is a fairly predictable diatribe, but I really don't feel like subjecting myself to News Corp spam just to set Mr. Kessler straight. According to Kessler, "Clearly we'd be better off having Microsoft, Apple and Google spending $1 billion on developing new products rather than buying up patents." Unfortunately, I can't see into alternate dimensions of our universe the way Kessler can, so I'll just have to take his word for it that rewarding the creators of, and those smart enough to invest in, the technology we fundamentally rely on today won't have a positive effect by encouraging tomorrow's creators and investors to keep doing their thing . . .

General Patent Corp. has issued a survey on patent reform which may offer some real insight into what actual businesses, small and large, think about the proposed legislation (HR 1249). The survey may be accessed here. One of the more interesting questions is #18 on whether the responders favor a "two-tiered" patent system.

While patent attorney Elliot Furman was interviewed about a patent filed in 1998, he uttered the following nonsense: “That is an absolutely ridiculous claim. If this patent was filed today, it would almost certainly be rejected.” Quite true, Mr. Furman. Incidentally, if I filed a patent on Mr. Edison's light bulb, or the Wright Brother's warped wings today, it too would almost certainly be rejected.

Earlier today, I asked deputy PTO director Teresa Stanek-Rea about what effect a rumored compromise to strip the fee diversion portions of patent reform would have on the patent office's support for the legislation. She wasn't able to tell me whether the Commerce Department or Obama administration was prepared to take a position on the bill if these funding provisions were removed, but acknowledged that implementing the remaining reforms without guaranteed fee retention would be very difficult.

From Hal Wegner:
"On Wednesday, June 22, 2011 the House will meet at 12:00 p.m. for legislative business… and likely begin consideration of H.R. 2021 1249 - America Invents Act."
Of course, we've all heard that before.

Reported this morning from Politico's Huddle:
The House Rules Committee postponed a planned Tuesday afternoon markup of legislation that would rewrite patent law because of an unresolved dispute over whether to give the Patent and Trademark Office full control over the money that it raises through fees or continue to require an annual congressional appropriation for its budget.

Back in March, I quietly predicted (in a comment on the IPBiz blog) that I "expect the House appropriations committee to kill the anti-fee diversion part of the bill." Today, the WSJ is reporting that Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers sent a letter to Lamar Smith opposing what he views as a "proposed shift of billions in discretionary funding and fee collections to mandatory spending." I hate being right.

Today, in deciding the patent ownership dispute between Stanford University and Roche, Chief Justice Roberts opened the Court's opinion with the following statement: "Since 1790, patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor." The America Invents Act would greatly diminish that premise.

Working on an article regarding this press release about Walker Digital using ICAP Ocean Tomo to negotiate FTO with its litigation defendants. If you have any thoughts to share (either privately or publicly), leave a comment or contact me directly.

Despite earlier reports, RPX will now begin trading on Thursday under the symbol RPXC. Meanwhile, the company is likely excited that the stock priced at $19 / share, above the $16-$18 expected.

Nathan Vardi at Forbes says that RPX's business is "trying to slay the monster they helped create." (See RPX IPO Helps Slay Patent Trolls - Nathan Vardi - The Jungle - Forbes.) The "they helped create" part refers to Amster's involvement in Intellectual Ventures, but without NPEs and patent assertion, RPX wouldn't have a business in the first place.

Rather than incur the wrath of Judge Folsom, Echostar agreed to pay half a billion dollars for rights to use (and continue to use) TiVo's patented time-warping methods. The past several years represent millions lost by TiVo in both litigation expenses and time lost, which, as Mike Masnick suggests, could have been re-invested by TiVo years ago to continue innovating.